Schedule 1
Offender Management Bill
5:45 pm
Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow, Labour)
The concern is that we will move in that direction. If staff are transferred from one provider to another when a new provider comes in, they will have the protection of TUPE. There are also the two-tier work force regulations, so there is some protection to help people who are transferred. It is not only a question of what happens in the initial stages, but of what happens in the longer term as new providers come in which are not simply transferring staff from the existing national service. All the evidence from the experience of the Prison Service is that the terms and conditions for staff in private prisons are significantly lower than in the public sector. It is a question of not only pay, but conditions—the Bill specifically mentions pensions and allowances.
What will happen to people’s career development? A national structure, as now, certainly helps if a probation officer moves from one area to another. Continuity of service and how that counts towards pay, grades or pensions, or how that relates to service entitlements such as annual leave, are not at issue. That is all simple and straightforward with a national structure and with the national professional career structure that follows from that. The fragmentation of that national structure, which will be the consequence of the schedule as it stands, is going to cause problems.
At the moment, the staffing levels of the national probation service are currently about 21,000, which is a relatively small number of people to negotiate on a collective bargaining basis. If we split that 42 ways or more, in some cases we will have a very small number of people negotiating about pay and conditions, which I do not see working. That will cause problems. The NOMS briefings issued by the Home Office state that there are no plans to move away from collective bargaining, but they specifically do not mention national collective bargaining. There is an important difference between “collective bargaining” and “national collective bargaining”.
I do not understand the need for sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 8. The provision in sub-paragraph (1) that the determination of the terms of employment—remuneration, pensions, allowances—
“requires the approval of the Secretary of State”
seems to be there as a safeguard, which should ensure that an individual provider is not able to shift pay and conditions a long way from the norm, particularly not downwards, which would be the obvious fear. However, the rest of paragraph 8 then gives the Secretary of State the power to ignore that. He can just say that, for the time being, he will decide that that will not apply. He might decide that that is not going to apply to an individual trust or even across the board. In what circumstances does the Minister think that he might wish to do away with any safeguards that he is putting in place on pay and conditions, which is the total effect of paragraph 8?
That is the almost inevitable consequence of the fragmentation that we are likely to see, if the Bill goes through in its present form. If we end up with large numbers of relatively small providers in the business, particularly in the private sector, then ensuring that national collective bargaining, national pay rates and national terms and conditions apply will be very difficult. We do not want to see a situation where two people doing identical jobs, maybe just a few miles apart, are on completely different terms and conditions of work, pay and pensions. That is where the schedule will lead us, if it stays as it is. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider it and explain why he believes it necessary to take away the safeguard of requiring the Secretary of State’s approval of pay, pensions and allowances, which will be an important issue for people who might wish to work in the service.